Peter experienced the ride of a lifetime in Matthew 14 when he walked on water. The Sea of Galilee is only 13 miles long & 8 miles wide. That is about an hour boat ride in nice conditions. Here we find the disciples, a few who are experienced fishermen, at 3 am (14:25) only having rowed about 3-4 miles (John 6:19). They were being beat by the storm.

We can become beaten down by life's storms

In the middle of a divorce, battered by guilt

In the middle of debt, battered by creditors

In the middle of a recession, battered by bailouts and layoffs

In the middle of child-raising, battered by frustration

In the middle of church work, battered by people

14:22, 25-26--Jesus, sometimes, sends us into the storm, b/c that’s where his glory is made known.

14:28-29--Storms force us to ActionPeter never would have had the opportunity or the thought to ask this during the calm. Think about Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Just look at the subtitle.

It is the unexpected trials of life which can bring us the coolest life experiences.

Its easy to get stuck in a routine. Storms prompt us to take unprecedented journeys

14:30--During the Storms we can lose FocusPeter was doing just fine. Maybe he walked a good distance, we don't know. But then something interrupted his attention; a wall of water or the flash of lightning. When he took his eyes off Jesus he began to sink. When we focus on the waves of worry, the flash of fret, the whipping winds of change we will sink in the storm. What's the point of worrying?

It can't change the situation (Mt 6:25)

It only produces anxiety

It pushes trust in God out of the equation (Mt 6:26-27)

All it leaves us with is high blood pressure and then we worry about that

14:31-32--The Key is to Learn from the StormsWe cannot prevent the storms from coming but we can control how we react to them. It is our duty to learn from them. If you think about it Jesus is the one who sent them into the storm (14:22). Why? Because he had something to teach them. What is God trying to teach you in your life?

I am sure if you are reading this post that you probably looked up Joshua 11:23 but let me quote it just in case you didn't; "So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Thus the land had rest from war." Most people, to answer the title to my post, would say, "Of course it is true. There it is in black and white." But if we continue to read the Biblical narrative we see that while Joshua 11:23 is true it isn'tliterally true.

I hate when people say, "I take the Bible literally". What does that even mean? Whenever someone says that all I can think of is Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride saying, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." We are to interpret the Bible in light of the genre for each context NOT always in a super-literal fashion. For example, is God literally a rock (2nd Sam 22:2)? NO! The Bible is full of different genres; history, poetry, pithy statements (Proverbs), apocalyptic, parables, etc... In this literature we have all types of literary devices such as similes, metaphors, imagery, rhyme, idioms, hyperboles, colloquial language, sarcasm, puns, didactic, etc... Therefore, not everything can be read "literally". So how should Joshua 11:23 be read?

If you were to only read Joshua I can understand why you would interpret it literally. The genre is history, which is typically literal. The statements seem to be very clear cut; that Joshua utterly defeated the Canaanites and took over the whole land. But there are two reasons why this would be a wrong approach

They wrote differently than the way we record history. Even though Joshua is history it is Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) History and not 21st Century Western History. Listen to what one scholar says about ANE historical records, "The type of rhetoric in question was a regular feature of military reports in the second and first millennia, as others have made very clear…In the later fifteenth century Tuthmosis III could boast “the numerous army of Mitanni, was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) non-existent”—whereas, in fact, the forces of Mitanni lived to fight many another day, in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries. Some centuries later, about 840/830, Mesha king of Moab could boast that “Israel has utterly perished for always”—a rather premature judgment at that date, by over a century! And so on, ad libitum. It is in this frame of reference that the Joshua rhetoric must also be understood.” (Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, pg. 174)

Joshua isn't an isolated document, it is to be read within the context of Deuteronomy through 2nd Kings. If we stopped after reading Joshua it could be granted for us to believe the Israelites conquered the whole land. But if we continue to read the Biblical narrative we see that "literally" wasn't the case.

There is a surface level tension between Joshua and Judges. Looks at a few examples

Joshua 11:23 states they took the whole land. Judges 1:1-4 opens up with Judah and Simeon attacking the Canaanites and Perizzites. But I thought that Joshua already gave them the land?

Joshua 10:36-40 says there were "no survivors" when Joshua attacked the cities from Eglon to Hebron. But when Judges 1:9-11 speak of these same cities we see survivors.

Joshua 11:23 states that Joshua did "all that the Lord commanded" in taking the whole land. But Judges 2:1-3, 21-23 says that there were nations which Joshua left when he died.

These are only a few examples but what do they show us? Biblical contradictions? Absolutely not!!! The Bible is its best interpreter. Thus, when we read Judges in company with Joshua we can conclude that there are hyperbolic statements in Joshua about his military campaigns. This is nothing to run from. The Bible uses hyperbole in many places (I.e. 2nd Chron 36:16-17, 20; Judges 1:8, 21; Jer 9:11, 15:6, 25:9 (compare with 2nd Kings 25:10-12); Deut 28:20-21, 24, 25, 45, 64-66).

What are some conclusions we can draw?

Joshua is written in the same literary style as other ANE conquest documents

Joshua needs to be read in light of the narrative from Deuteronomy to 2nd Kings

Hyperbolic language is used in order to instill fear in their enemies and magnify the victories of God

Hyperbolic language is used all throughout Scripture including other historical genres

When read in comparison with Judges we see that Joshua practical but not literally destroyed the Canaanites and took their cities.

People often misunderstand the nature of Salvation by Grace. They take grace in terms of license to sin (Romans 6:1ff) or "freedom in Christ" as "freedom from covenant". When the Bible says we are no longer under Law but under Grace (Rom 6:14) it means we are not bound to the Law as a way of salvation. But it does not imply that the Covenant of Grace does not have terms which must be obeyed.

Let us look at what the New Testament says:

Romans 10:12-16--note the method God has set up for salvation. Preachers are sent, they preach, people hear, then have the opportunity to believe, if they believe they will call on the name of the Lord to be saved. But then comes the sober reality. In 10:16 (NASB) it says, "However they did not all heed the good news..." But a more literal translation can say, "However they did not all obey the Gospel..."

1st Peter 1:22--"Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart" The truth is not just to be believed but something to be obeyed. Furthermore, this is in reference to their initial conversion (notice the past tense) not their continued adherence to the covenant.

Acts 6:7b--"a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith" Again we see that when people heard the Gospel they didn't simply believe it they had to obey it.

Therefore, the pivotal question is, "What are the terms of obedience?" First we must make some clarifications between Justification and Sanctification. The latter is the progressive process of becoming more and more like Christ in our moral character. The former refers to our leal standing with God. In terms of Justification we are either condemned or counted as if our penalty has already been paid. Justification refers to that one time declaration by God, the Judge, to declare "no more penalty for you" (Rom 8:1). Thus, when we are speaking about obeying the Gospel we are referring to what one must do in order to be justified.

Walter Scott, a Restoration Movement preacher in the 1800's, came up with a 5 finger exercise. He would go into a town and gather the children. He would teach them this exercise and tell them to repeat it. Then he would instruct them to go home to their parents and tell them that is what he was preaching on that evening at the revival meeting.

Mr. Scott, though, before counting off his 5 finger exercise would always start with the confession that Jesus is Lord. What I mean is that he would teach people what it means that Jesus is Lord. For if one does not believe this then why tell them how to obey the Gospel? Here is the exercise:

Faith--with this we get a changed mind. Atheists like to tell the world faith is believing in spite of the evidence. To the contrary the Bible says faith is to believe in what you cannot see based on the evidence you can see. Faith has two aspects; Assent and Trust. The former is inadequate for salvation (James 2:19). The object of our trust is Jesus Christ as Lord. We have confidence in the conclusions drawn from intellectual assent to the truth so that we can change our minds about how we view Jesus. We trust that his sacrificial death is an adequate substitute for our death.

Repentance--with it we get a changed will. We should not mistake this for regret, sorrow for the consequences of sin, nor superficial remorse. Initially Repentance is a changed will in regards to Lordship. Do we want Jesus to be Lord or do we want to be Lord of our life? But repentance is a life-long process. Everyday we try to align our will with God's NOT His will with ours.

Baptism--with this we get a changed identity (Acts 2:38). Now don't go charging me with being a "Baptismal Regenerationist". I don't believe in that non-sense. I do not think there is something in the water, regardless of how many times Carrie Underwood sings it. Peter very clearly tells us it is not the water that saves us (1st Peter 3:21). Do not charge me with adding works to salvation. I believe we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:6, 8). The question is not "what is the means of salvation?". That is crystal clear; it is faith. The question, however, is this, "what is the occasion of salvation?" In other words, WHEN does God bestow on us the benefits of Christ. The typical evangelical world will say "as soon as we have faith" or "when I prayed Jesus into my heart". But is this found in the New Testament? NO!!! What do we find? We find that a person who has come to trust that Jesus is the Christ comes to the waters of baptism calling on God for a clean conscious (1st Peter 3:21). They are buried with Christ and raised through their faith (Romans 6; Col 2:12). It is kind of hard to appeal to God for a clean conscious when you are already saved! And why would you bury a man who has already been made alive? Or can a person be a Christian without having the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)?

Forgiveness of sins--here we receive a changed state. We have done our part of obeying the Gospel (Faith, Repentance, Baptism). Now this is God's part. he pays our penalty (Acts 2:38) so that we no longer have any condemnation (Rom 8:1) because we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us (2nd Cor 5:21). We enter into a state of Grace (Rom 5:2). We enter Into Christ where all the spiritual blessings are bestowed (Eph 1).

Gift of the Holy Spirit--finally we receive a changed condition. Not only does God take care of our legal problem (justified) but he takes care of our sickness (sanctification). We are give the Spirit of God to help us become conformed to the image of Christ. We are made alive together with Christ (Eph 2:5) by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5).

If sin is considered double trouble--it causes a legal debt and a sickness--then grace is a double cure. The only question that remains is this....Have you Obeyed the Gospel according to the New Testament pattern?"

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,Let me hide myself in Thee;Let the water and the blood,From Thy wounded side which flowed,Be of sin the double cure,Save from wrath and make me pure.

Simple answer....they weren't innocent!!! People often attack the Old Testament as portraying God of moral atrocities. Evidently, to them, Yahweh is analogous to a pre-historic Hitler.

How dare He command the slaughter of innocent people! Not attempting to show that their accusations assume an absolute moral standard, which they can only get from God, let us attack the presupposition that the Canaanites were innocent. There are three good reasons to believe they weren’t blameless:

1) Israel had a legal right to the land of Canaan.

God is the owner of the whole earth (Exodus 13:5; Ps 24:1). Therefore, he has the right to give and take away

Israel was not playing a life-sized game of Risk. God had forbidden them from conquering other nations. For God gave this land to their patriarchs not to Israel (Deut 2:4-6)

The story of the Conquest is directly linked to the story of Genesis. A few hundred years before Joshua the Lord had promised to give the land to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 17:8; 26:3; 28:13). In fact the patriarchs of Israel began possessing parts of the land in their day (Gen 23:17-20; 33:19-20).

The Canaanites were trespassers and they knew it. A reading of the story of Rahab and the Gibeonites shows that, at least parts of, the Canaanites knew the works of God and that the Lord had given the land to Israel (Josh 2:9-10; 9:24).

2) The Canaanites were being judged for their wickedness.

God gave them over 400 years to repent (Gen 15:13-16)

The Canaanites could not get any more wicked. Leviticus 18 lists out their sins that include: incest, adultery, bestiality, ritual prostitution, homosexual acts, and child sacrifice [Duet 12:29-31]. In Biblical theology sometimes people can become so wicked that they are unable to repent. This is what Paul calls the depraved mind (Romans 1:28) or a deluding influence sent by the Lord (2nd Thess 2:11).

The Lord was worried about the Canaanites potential corrupting influence if Israel assimilated.

He constantly warned them that bad company corrupts good morals (Deut 20:18; 7:4; Exod 23:33; 34:15-16).

The Lord was ok with Israel allowing peripheral nations to assimilate into them (Deut 20:10-15). But if Israel, a smaller people, cohabitated with the great in number Canaanites then Israel would eventually become de facto Canaanites.

Thus, in a sense, the Canaanites were so wicked that God could consider them guilty before the fact of corrupting Israel

On last important note to mention is that God allowed those who rejected Canaanite practices to be assimilated and considered an Israelite. Most miss this point by only reading the Biblical text on the surface. Any non-Israelite who wanted to accept the covenant God made could become a bon a fide Israelite.

He established this at the very beginning before the Exodus (Gen 17:7-14; Exodus 12:38, 42-49; cf. Rom 4)

Rahab was accepted into the Covenant and is part of Jesus’ lineage (Mt 1:5). She obviously had great faith in Yahweh (Joshua 2:11; James 2:25)

Caleb had Canaanite forefathers (Num 32:12; John 14:6, 14; Cf. Gen 15:18-20). Yet he was 1 of 2 (Joshua) who were not condemned in the wilderness but allowed into the Promised Land because of his great faith (Num 14:24).

The Shechemites forsook Canaanite ways to become part of Israel. We see them at a covenant renewal ceremony celebrating it alongside the Israelites (Joshua 8:33-35).

In conclusion we see the Canaanites were far from innocent. They were occupying a land that was not their own. They did not deserve the land due to their great wickedness. They were, for the most part, past the point of repentance and would only serve as a snare for the Israelites. Yet God, in his wonderful grace allowed those Canaanites who did not go along with the status quo, but instead wanted to follow the Living God, to become part of the covenant He made with Israel.